Owning Battlespace

[Bob's World]

What worked in wars 3,000 years ago, works today. War is politics. Break will, gain control, and support follows. Influence comes from the application of force, to force compliance. Influence is control, and it is should be articulated as control.

Focus on killing and all else follows. Kill the people opposed to your policy. if that doesn't work the policy, not the killing, was wrong. Leave the population alone. Focus effort of breaking the will of enemy armed force, be they regular or irregular.

There is no confusion as to what works and how to do it.

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" Wise words. I would take the liberty to derive from that "Give unto Mars that which is Mar's."

What I just posted on the thread regarding globalization applies, and I won't repeat here. My case is yes, war is war; but NO insurgency is not war; and foreign intervention is not COIN. History is littered with the ruins of empires who never grasped this fine point.

I say it's time to break the trend. So, when at war, wage war. Crush your enemies and the will of his populace to even consider attempting such a thing ever again (or at least for a generation or two). But when faced with illegal challenges at home by one's own populace tread lightly in re-establishing security and focus on understanding and addressing the true causes (most of which will track right back to the government itself) of the uprising. When going overseas to assist a friendly government faced with such challenges give them this friendly advice as well. Tell them you will not assist them in the suppression of their own people, but rather that you are willing to help them in a neutral manner to mediate the differences between the people and their government. If that is not enough for that government, or if that government then seeks to screw you over by turning to your enemies for such support in suppressing the populace the answer is easy: Switch to UW and support the people against the government. At the end of the day, our national interests are in the resources and support of the land and the people. Governments come and go.

[Bob's World]

(oh yeah, and now I have a homework assignment from Infanteer and Ken to go find out who the heck Joseph S. Nye is, and read some of his stuff.)

[max161]

See his original Foreign Policy article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...e-jr/get-smart

This is where Secretary Clinton derives the concept of Smart Power she talks about.

See also the CSIS Smart Power initiative: http://csis.org/program/smart-power-initiative

[Bob's World]

See his original Foreign Policy article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...e-jr/get-smart

This is where Secretary Clinton derives the concept of Smart Power she talks about.

See also the CSIS Smart Power initiative: http://csis.org/program/smart-power-initiative

Thanks Dave, actually I am less ignorant on this than I thought. QDDR, the products coming out of PNSR ( http://www.pnsr.org/index.asp ) have a great deal of good within them, but I find them to be disconnected from the realities of what it takes to operationalize them, and also the realities of our own liability in the causation of many of the problems that challenge us the most.

So, my take adds a larger dose of taking responsibility for our own contributory roles and also a more realist approach toward operationalizing what are admittedly fairly "idealistic" recommendations.

So, I find that "neoliberalism" misses the mark as far to the left of the target as "neoconservatism" misses to the right. I will have to develop my own brand, but it would probably best be described as "NeoAmericanism".

A philosophy that returns to our founding principles as a nation, that recognizes our responsibility in contributing to current instability (as well as much that is good) in the world, and that recognizes the difference between war and peace, and wages both with relentless pursuit of influence whenever, and wherever necessary. Recognizing also that there are few greater applications of power than wise restraint in a manner that allows others to sort out their own differences without always defaulting to "might makes right." Employing a greater might to allow "right" to evolve semi-peacefully as determined by the populaces that it affects the most.

Making this up as I go. Perhaps its time for a NeoAmerican Party that gives rational Americans who feel abandoned by both the Democratic and the Republican parties a place where they can work together to make America, and a world touched by American influence, a better place.

[Infanteer]

(oh yeah, and now I have a homework assignment from Infanteer and Ken to go find out who the heck Joseph S. Nye is, and read some of his stuff.)

Much of what you say resonates to his writings on soft power and its difference from hard power.

[sullygoarmy]

(oh yeah, and now I have a homework assignment from Infanteer and Ken to go find out who the heck Joseph S. Nye is, and read some of his stuff.)

Link to Joseph Nye's book, Soft Power. A good, quick read.

[William F. Owen]

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

From the Christian book?

My case is yes, war is war; but NO insurgency is not war; and foreign intervention is not COIN. History is littered with the ruins of empires who never grasped this fine point.

Insurgency is really baby-talk for a rebellion. Rebellions is when folks seek to alter the political power being exercised over them. How is that not war?

Empires, nations and ideas are sustained by wiping out the the rebels. Rebellion is War. Faced with a rebellion, you break the armed factions will to fight and force them conduct peaceful negotiations for their political objectives, under terms you dictate.

[Bob's World]

Yes, yes, I am quite aware of the recipe for sustaining illegitimate and despotic rule over ones own populace or the populace of others. Nothing new or insightful there.

What I speak to is how to actually address the root causes. Suppression of those who dare to challenge you is easy enough. Resolving such situations is another matter entirely, and it cannot be resolved through the principles of war or through the conduct of warfare.

[William F. Owen]

Yes, yes, I am quite aware of the recipe for sustaining illegitimate and despotic rule over ones own populace or the populace of others. Nothing new or insightful there.

...but you cannot say what is despotic or illegitimate. The US President tells you what is legitimate and what is not. He is a politician and his statements are very relative, changeable and imprecise.

There is no bench-mark for legitimacy. You just have a political opinion as to what is legitimate.

What I speak to is how to actually address the root causes. Suppression of those who dare to challenge you is easy enough.

...but you are no qualified to address them or know what the root causes are. You just want your version of power in place, which would be pro-US and thus in the eyes of many could in no way be legitimate.

Resolving such situations is another matter entirely, and it cannot be resolved through the principles of war or through the conduct of warfare.

History does not support that statement.